Managerial Resourcefulness in School Administrators: Association with Stress and Depression

Year 2018, Volume: 47 Issue: 1, 216 - 232, 22.04.2018

Muhammed Turhan , Songül Karabatak , Dönüş Şengür , Muhammed Zincirli

https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.306529

Cited By: 2

Abstract

The purpose of present
study is to determine the relationship between school managers' levels of
managerial resourcefulness and levels of stress and depression experienced. For
this reason relational research model was used in the study.

The universe of the study constitutes 704 school administrators who
served in Elazığ city center and its districts. In the scope of the study, the
data was collected from 205 school administrators by using the method of
disproportionate element sampling. Managerial Resourcefulness Scale, Stress
Scale and Depression Scale were used to collect the data. According to
findings; it has been concluded that there is a high level of the managerial
resourcefulness impact on stress and depression and while the level of
managerial resourcefulness increased, the level of stress and depression
decreased. When the significance
levels of the regression coefficients are examined, it is seen that the
variables of being cautiousness and decisiveness are significant predictors of
both depression scores and stress scores.

Keywords

Managerial resourcefulness, Stress, Depression, School administrator

Okul Yöneticilerinde Yönetsel Güçlülük: Stres ve Depresyon ile İlişkisi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, okul
yöneticilerinin yönetsel güçlülük düzeyleri ile yaşadıkları stres ve depresyon
arasındaki ilişkiyi belirlemektir. Bu nedenle çalışmada ilişkisel araştırma
modeli kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın
çalışma evrenini 2014-2015 eğitim-öğretim yılında Elazığ il merkezinde ve
ilçelerinde görev yapan 704  okul
yöneticisi oluşmaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında 205 okul yöneticisinden oransız
eleman örnekleme yöntemi ile veri toplanmıştır.  Verilerin toplanmasında “Yönetsel Güçlülük
Ölçeği”, “Stres Ölçeği” ve Depresyon Ölçeği kullanılmıştır.

Araştırma
bulgularına göre; yönetsel güçlülüğün, stres ve depresyon üzerindeki
etkilerinin yüksek düzeyde olduğu ve okul yöneticilerinin yönetsel güçlülük
düzeyleri arttıkça, stres ve depresyon düzeyleri azaldığı sonucuna
ulaşılmıştır. Regresyon katsayılarının anlamlılık düzeyleri incelendiğinde
temkinli ve tedbirli olma ile azimli olma değişkenlerinin, hem depresyon
puanlarının hem de stres puanlarının anlamlı bir yordayıcısı olduğu
görülmüştür. 

Keywords

Yönetsel güçlülük, Stres, Depresyon, Okul yöneticisi

References

• Akgün, S., & Ciarrochi, J. (2000). Learned Resourcefulness Moderates the Relationship Between Academic Stress and Academic Performance. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 287-294.
• Aycan, Z. (1997). Expatriate adjustment as a multifaceted phenomenon: Individual and organizational level predictors. Journal of International Human Resource Management, 8(4), 434-456.
• Barutçugil, İ. (2002). Performans yönetimi. İstanbul: Kariyer Yayıncılık.
• Chung C. C., Lin M. F., Ching Y. C., Kao C. C., Chou Y. Y., Ho P.H., & Chang H. J. (2012). Mediating and moderating effects of learned resourcefulness on depressive symptoms and positive ideation in hospital nurses in Taiwan. Research in Nursing & Health, 35(6), 576-588.
• Ersözlü, A. (2012). Okul Yöneticilerinin Yönetsel Güçlülük Düzeylerinin Öğretmenlerin Örgütsel Bağlılık, Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışları ve İş Doyumuna Etkisi. Fırat Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
• Goldberg, L.R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In Personality psychology in Europe, ed. I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, and F. Ostendorf, 7–28. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
• Kanungo, R. N.. & Misra, S. (1992). Managerial Resourcefulness: A Reconceptualization of Management Skills. Human Relations, 45(12), 1311-1332. Kanungo, R. N., & Menon: T. (2004). Managerial Resourcefulness: The Construct and Its Measurement. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 13(2), 129-152.
• Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2005). Managerial Resourcefulness Measuring a Critical Component of Leadership Effectiveness. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 14(1), 39-55.
• Karakuş, M. (2013). Emotional intelligence and negative feelings: A Gender Specific Moderated Mediation Model, Educational Studies, 39(1), 68-82.
• Yıldırım, M. H., Gülpınar, Ş., & Uğuz, Ş. (2012). İş Yaşamında Öğrenilmiş Güçlülük İle İş Stresi Arasındaki İlişkileri Belirlemeye Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(2), 133-144.
• Yürür, S., & Keser, A. (2010). Öğrenilmiş Güçlülüğün Demografik Değişkenlere Bağlı Olarak İncelenmesi: Öğretmenler Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Çalışma İlişkileri Dergisi, 1(1), 59-70.
• Cüceloğlu, D. (1994). İnsan ve Davranışı. Psikolojinin Temel Kavramları. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative. (4 th Edi.). New Jersey: Upper Saddle River.
• Misra, S., & Kumar, E. S. (2000). Resourcefulness: A proximal conceptualisation of entrepreneurial behaviour. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 135-154.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2011). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: PegemA Publishing.
• Öztaykutlu, G. G. (2013). Farklı eğitim kurumlarında çalışan okul öncesi eğitim öğretmenlerinin öğrenilmiş güçlülük seviyeleri ile problem çözme becerilerinin incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul
• Doğan, S., & Şahin, F. (2011). Yönetsel güçlülük ve etkililik: kavramsal bir çalışma. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 25(2). Karasar, N. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Rusli, B. N., Edimansyah, B. A., & Naing, L. (2008). Working conditions, self-perceived stress, anxiety, depression and quality of life: A structural equation modelling approach. BMC public health, 8(1), 1.
• Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers' self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of educational Psychology, 102(3), 741.
• Timms, C., Graham, D., & Caltabiano, M. (2006). Gender implication of perceptions of trustworthiness of school administration and teacher burnout/job stress. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 41(3), 343.
• Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification. New York: Plenum.
• Eroglu, Y., Akbaba, S., Adigüzel, O., & Peker, A. (2014). Learned Resourcefulness and Coping with Stress in Mothers of Children with Disabilities. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 55, 243-261.
• Baltaş, A. Ve Baltaş, Z. (1998). Depresyon ve Başa Çıkma Yolları. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
• Sezer, S. (2011). Örgütsel Depresyon Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi ve Psikometrik Niteliklerinin Belirlenmesi. İş-güç Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi. 13(1), 39-50.
• Arkın, İ. E. (2013). English-medium instruction in higher education: A case study in a Turkish university context . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Eastern Mediterranean University, Cyprus.
• Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 427 – 445.
• Astin, A. W. (1993). What Matters in college. Liberal Education, 79(4), 4-15.
• Bjorklund, S. A., Parente, J. M., & Sathianath, D. (2004). Effects of faculty interaction and feedback on gains in student skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(2), 153-160.
• Bowman, N. A., & Hill, H. L. (2011). Measuring how college affects students: Social desirability and other potential biases in college student self-reported gains. New Directions for Institutional Research, 150, 73-85.
• Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing and linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.
• Cheng, D. X. (2001). Assessing student collegiate experience: Where so we begin? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 525-538.
• Cradler, J., McNabb, M., Freeman, M., & Burchett, R. (2002). How does technology influence student learning? Learning and Leading with Technology, 29(8), 46-49.
• Dafei, D. (2007). An exploration of the relationship between learner autonomy and English proficiency. Asian EFL Journal, 24, 1-23.
• Errey, R., & Wood, G. (2011). Lessons from a student engagement pilot study. Australian Universities’ Review, 53(1), 21-34.
• Gizir, C. A. (1998). A study on the problems of the METU senior students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University, Turkey.
• Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 184-191.
• Harbour, K. E., Evanovich, L. L., Sweigart, C. A., & Hughes, L. E. (2015). A brief review of effective teaching practices that maximize student engagement. Preventing School Failure, 59(1), 5-13.
• Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guildford.
• Koljatic, M., & Kuh, G. D. (2001). A longitudinal assessment of college student engagement in good practices in undergraduate education. Higher Education, 42, 351-371.
• Kramer, G. L. (2007). Fostering student success: What really matters? In Kramer & Associates (Eds.), Fostering student success in the campus community (pp. 433-448). San Fransicco: Jossey-Bass.
• Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10-17.
• Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35, 24-32.
• Kuh, G. D. (2009). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 5-20.
• Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Assoc., (2005). Assessing conditions to enhance educational effectiveness: The inventory for student engagement and success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. In Commissioned report for the national symposium on postsecondary student success: Spearheading a dialog on student success. National Postsecondary Educational Cooperative.
• Kuh, G. D., Pace, C. R., & Vesper, N. (1997). The development of process indicators to estimate student gains associated with good practices in undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 38, 435-454.
• Kuh, G. D., & Vesper, N. (2001). Do computer enhance or detract from student learning? Research In higher Education, 42, 87-102.
• Laird, T. F. N., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). Student experiences with information technology and their relationship to other aspects of student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46, 211-233.
• Lewis, J., Coursol, D., & Khan, L. (2001). College [e-mail]: A Study of comfort and the use of technology. Journal of College Student Development, 42(6), 625-631.
• Liem, G. A. D., & Martin, A. J. (2011). Peer relationships and adolescents’ academic and non‐academic outcomes: Same‐sex and opposite‐sex peer effects and the mediating role of school engagement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 183-206.
• Lloyd, J., Dean, L. A., & Cooper, D. L. (2007). Students' technology use and its effects on peer relationships, academic involvement, and healthy lifestyles. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 44(3), 879-893.
• Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student interaction as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development, 45(5), 549-565.
• Moran, E. T., & Gonyea, T. (2003). The influence of academically-focused peer interaction on college students' development. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED478773).
• NSSE (2006). About NSSE.http://nsse.iub.edu/html/about.cfm .
• Odeh, A. Y. (2012). Use of information resources by undergraduate students and its relationship with academic achievement. Libri: International Journal of Libraries & Information Services, 62(3), 222-232.
• Önen, E. (2014). Öğrencinin Okula Bağlılığı Ölçeği: Türk ortaokul ve lise öğrencileri için uyarlama çalışması [Student Engagement Instrument: Adaptation study for Turkish secondary and high school students]. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 5(42), 221-234.
• Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty-years of research (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
• Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46, 185-209.
• Pritchard, M. E., & Wilson, G. S. (2003). Using emotional and social factors to predict student success. Journal of college student development, 44(1), 18-28.
• Ren, W. H. (2000). Library instruction and college student self-efficacy in electronic information searching. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26, 323-328.
• Ryan, J. F. (2005). Institutional expenditures and student engagement: A role for financial resources in enhancing student learning and development? Research in Higher Education, 46, 235-249.
• Schweinle, A. S., Reisetter, M. & Stokes, V. (2009). Elements of engagement for successful learning. The Qualitative Report, 14(4), 774-806.
• Soria, K. M., Fransen J., & Nackerud, S. (2013). Library use and undergraduate student outcomes: New evidence for students’ retention and academic success. Libraries and the Academy, 13(2), 147-164.
• Soria, K. M., Fransen, J., & Nackerud, S. (2014). Stacks, serials, search engines, and students' success: First-year undergraduate students' library use, academic achievement, and retention. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(1), 84-91.
• Toutkoushian, R. K., & Smart, J. C. (2001). Do institutional characteristics affect students’ gains from college? The Review of Higher Education, 25, 39-61.
• Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153-184.
• Zhao, C.M., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115- 137.
• Whitmire, E. (2011). The relationship between undergraduates’ background characteristics and college experiences and their academic library use. College & Research Libraries, 62, 528-540.
• Wong, S. H. R., & Webb, T. D. (2010). Uncovering meaningful correlation between student academic performance and library material usage. College & Research Libraries, 72, 361-370.